MLK and the road of dependency and socialism

[Diane Amberg]

Now that's what I was interested in, your take on all that. But you didn't mention the poll taxes and literacy tests.
  As far as non property owners now not having the right to vote, are you assuming that people who don't choose to own property are some how dumber or something?   Some very high paying jobs are not conducive to property ownership. We have people in Delaware right now who are bridge builders working on a big new bridge over Indian River Inlet. They rent for a year or two, or as long as the project lasts and move on. That includes the engineers and very well paid steel and construction people who leave a lot of money in the communities they are in while the project goes on. They shouldn't vote?  There are many more examples, including a whole trailer park near here that has many  short term rentals of professional people working on computer projects or are in sales. Most probably will buy homes some day but they figure during their sales and travel years why own a home you are never in? No vote for them either? Look at all the seniors who have done the homeowner bit and no longer want the maintenance or up keep. They move into  small apartments, independent living or assisted living complexes, only to have you take away their voting privileges? Talk about government interference and an elitist agenda! You mess with some of my senior friends and they'll toss you in the pool, especially the members of the stock and bond club at the senior center! You would also eliminate most New York City residents.  How about the people now who build the wind farms? I'll bet not all of them own homes. Not everybody sees property ownership the way you do.
By the way, I disagree that in colonial times most people were property owners...not true. The upper crust made sure of that. Share croppers and such didn't own their land. The shop and business owners and factories and mines had employees who didn't make enough to own land.  Some couldn't even afford weapons, hence the armories for the militia, but that's another topic. Most were totally disenfranchised.   
We just celebrated Separation Day again. Know what that means?

[srkruzich]

Now that's what I was interested in, your take on all that. But you didn't mention the poll taxes and literacy tests.
  As far as non property owners now not having the right to vote, are you assuming that people who don't choose to own property are some how dumber or something?

Never said that did i.  I agree with the way it was originally setup.  It was the best way to ensure that govt didn't get out of control.  Poll taxes literacy tests thats was all created as a result of reconstruction.

Some very high paying jobs are not conducive to property ownership.

Not my problem.  Their consumers then. 

We have people in Delaware right now who are bridge builders working on a big new bridge over Indian River Inlet. They rent for a year or two, or as long as the project lasts and move on. That includes the engineers and very well paid steel and construction people who leave a lot of money in the communities they are in while the project goes on. They shouldn't vote? 

No not if their not property owners.   They also are not producers.   They don't produce jobs.

There are many more examples, including a whole trailer park near here that has many  short term rentals of professional people working on computer projects or are in sales. Most probably will buy homes some day but they figure during their sales and travel years why own a home you are never in? No vote for them either?

when they buy property then  yeah.  until then no. 

Look at all the seniors who have done the homeowner bit and no longer want the maintenance or up keep. They move into  small apartments, independent living or assisted living complexes, only to have you take away their voting privileges? Talk about government interference and an elitist agenda! [

Its their choice.  sorry but are they producing?  Nope not a bit.

You mess with some of my senior friends and they'll toss you in the pool, especially the members of the stock and bond club at the senior center! You would also eliminate most New York City residents.  How about the people now who build the wind farms? I'll bet not all of them own homes. Not everybody sees property ownership the way you do.
By the way, I disagree that in colonial times most people were property owners...not true. The upper crust made sure of that. Share croppers and such didn't own their land. The shop and business owners and factories and mines had employees who didn't make enough to own land.  Some couldn't even afford weapons, hence the armories for the militia, but that's another topic. Most were totally disenfranchised.   
We just celebrated Separation Day again. Know what that means?

You know what, it was setup that way cause it would work.  And today we have a system that doesn't work.  The voters today. IF they were producers, they wouldnt' allow this government to tax the crap out of them.  They wouldnt' allow the government to grow as big as it is.  The non producing voters have discovered they can vote themselves largess, steal other peoples money.   

Right now personally i would like to see a voting system setup where everyone gets 1 vote. THen for every 5000 dollars you pay in taxes, that means write a check on april 15, after you get your deductions, and refunds, ect but every 5000 dollars you get an extra vote to cast.  That would fix how government operates.  The politicians would be so afraid to tax anyone or grow big government that they would suck it up and operate on a budget set by the producers.
 

[Diane Amberg]

And here I thought that was how big business and lobbyists already worked...buying votes! Good grief.

[pamagain]

 I am SERIOUSLY sittin here with an OMG look on my face readin this............Diane you are a worse glutton for punishment than I am arguing with this...............just when I think I can't possibly be shocked anymore........I am.....

[srkruzich]

And here I thought that was how big business and lobbyists already worked...buying votes! Good grief.

Thats not buying votes.  the concept of producers keeping the taxes in check, since they don't want to pay taxes to begin with, works very well.   Keeps the government in check as it cannot grow without the producers permissions.

[srkruzich]

I am SERIOUSLY sittin here with an OMG look on my face readin this............Diane you are a worse glutton for punishment than I am arguing with this...............just when I think I can't possibly be shocked anymore........I am.....

Come on now, why would a consumer be qualified to vote. THey consume, they don't  produce.   This country consumes too much.  And the producers are stuck with the bill.  Why don't the consumers pay for their fair share?  You want to vote, take on the costs associated.  But nooo thats too hard. So they are quite happy to consume, and vote themselves money/largess from the treasury because they don't want to spend any of their money to produce something of value.

You know Education is a great example.  Why is it that we don't charge people for education. It is a proven fact that if you earn it you work harder to keep it.  If its free, people don't give a rats fanny about it.  Education is no different.   Think that isn't true, go to any college campus today and watch the kids.  the ones who have to work for their money, make the grade.  The ones who get daddys money, or government money party hardy.  Most of the ones that get free money to go to school, or on daddys nickle, usually end up on academic probation.  They don't care. 
Only when the screws are put to them do they knuckle down and get to work.

Same thing in middle and highschool.  The kids don't have to work for it.  If this wasn't true then your graduation rates, would be in the high 90%.   You get what you put into it.  Used to be parents footed the bill for education and shoved a foot up their kids ass when they didn't get good grades and learn.   The fear of daddys foot gave them all the incentive to learn that they needed.  Now days, its no biggie, you don't put forth the effort, you get a pass anyway.  they'll move ya up into the next grade and you can " catch up". Only problem is there is no accountability.  They just keep passing them up and out of their hair until they get to college.  Thats why you have college remedial classes these days to do what the highscool didn't do.

[Diane Amberg]

Let's see now, we started out talking about "producer" rather than "consumers" and voting, and I'm still not sure I understand . When my Uncle Bill (Billy) still had working oil wells, there came a time when he had others hold the mineral leases and he, then we, got royalty checks for the oil. We still owned the land. So we could vote but the leaser couldn't? Around here we have lots of people who rent land to run cattle on and rent land for crops too. According to you they produce nothing and wouldn't be allowed to vote, but the land owner gets to vote who produced nothing but a rental check. Surely that's not what you meant. People who work produce something, even if it is information. They are paid to do it and then they can be consumers with the money they earned. Even baby sitters and lifeguards produce something. It's called a safe environment.
   Education?  We do charge people! It's called school taxes and one of the things I taught every class I ever had, even the third graders, was how their education was being paid for and why they shouldn't waste it.  Most of them really got it. Very few of my regular kids had to go to summer school either, because if they were goofing off, I made sure they knew that their parents had to pay extra for it and that would be money they wouldn't have to spend on other things that summer. As far as other grades, many kids here do have jobs, some don't.  Some buy their own school clothes, some only have to buy extras.
 I was lucky enough to have 'Daddy's money" and didn't have to work during high school or college, but I sure didn't party myself into poor grades either. I was too busy with the band and other activities, and extra classes, and my parents just wouldn't have put up with it. They knew what I was capable of and expected me to live up to it.
As far as your other comments, about education,you are generalizing again! It does happen but not universally. I had a few parents who did lean on me to push their kids through and I refused. Usually the problem was attendance and behavior. Kids who aren't there, don't learn.  The parents would complain and whine, usually to the principal, because they didn't want the stigma of a held back child who might get bored or embarrassed and would be bigger than the other kids.   Horse feathers!
The kids who win full scholarships don't need remediation! You are being very unfair to the kids who do work hard. A few I knew were dyslexic or ADD and came from little schools that simply didn't have the resources for learning disabilities...Like the poor schools that you yourself mentioned. For a good many, English was a second language and remedial classes were welcomed.
As far as I'm concerned, colleges shouldn't be complaining. They know exactly the caliber of the schools the applicants attended. Why admit a kid from a high school that is known not to produce college quality kids? Just don't admit them!
 UD has a  large second semester sophomore drop out rate. The kids goof off, they may get through the general freshman classes. Then comes sophomore year and all bets are off. The classes are much tougher and they goof, they're gone.( Much to the shock to the parent's pocketbook.)   Colleges now, for the most part, don't care how many years it takes a student to finish. 4 years? 5 or 6? Flunk out? Take more remedial classes and come back.  You are a customer, not just a student.$$$$$$ Eventually most kids settle down and get to studying. It's the parents who keep paying, and paying. Then the #10 boot is appropriate!

[pamagain]

Come on now, why would a consumer be qualified to vote. THey consume, they don't  produce.

  This whole rant you are on is so f*&^in ridiculous as to be comical if it wasn't so sad.

Hell yeah! Lets go back to the old system of the Patroon and the serfs!

The Mill OWNERS and the mill WORKERS who were guaranteed to work themselves to DEATH JUST to live in a F-in SHACK......

Helll YEAH, lets go back to the Landowner/ sharecropper system.........work yourself to DEATH just for the privilege of livin in a shack and givin all but what the company STORE said you OWED for the BEANS you ate last year to the OWNER.

Let's go back to the system of the mine OWNERS and the MINERS...coughin their LUNGS up so the MUCKY mucks could sit up on the hill and look down their NOSES at them and keep them so far in debt to the COMPANY STORE that they NEVER had any HOPE of owning anything of their own.

THEN....the OWNERS.....who are SO much more qualified to VOTE for what is good for their economic SLAVES can vote themselves the laws that keep the workers NOSES down and on the COMPANY grindstone.......You make me sick.

RENTERS produce INCOME for the landlord..........WORKERS produce PRODUCT for the OWNER.........they have every bit as much a right to vote as anybody ELSE in THIS country buddy....

[Diane Amberg]

But Pam, if you just deny that those things ever happened you'd be right in the main stream.  All employers were like parents to their workers, made sure they lived a comfortable middle class life style before they took a penny in profit...Yeah, right! There  actually were some very kind employee giants.  Very rare indeed.

[srkruzich]

Let's see now, we started out talking about "producer" rather than "consumers" and voting, and I'm still not sure I understand . When my Uncle Bill (Billy) still had working oil wells, there came a time when he had others hold the mineral leases and he, then we, got royalty checks for the oil. We still owned the land. So we could vote but the leaser couldn't? Around here we have lots of people who rent land to run cattle on and rent land for crops too. According to you they produce nothing and wouldn't be allowed to vote, but the land owner gets to vote who produced nothing but a rental check. Surely that's not what you meant. People who work produce something, even if it is information. They are paid to do it and then they can be consumers with the money they earned. Even baby sitters and lifeguards produce something. It's called a safe environment.

First of all, your combigning two different topics.  First topic was about property owners being the ones to vote.  Second topic was all people got 1 vote but the ones who pay 5k increments get a vote for every 5k.

Third, a producer is someone who creates jobs, wealth.  a consumer is a individual who works for a producer.  A business owner would be a producer. 

Education?  We do charge people! It's called school taxes and one of the things I taught every class I ever had, even the third graders, was how their education was being paid for and why they shouldn't waste it.

Not at all accurate.  The ones who pay the taxes aka property owners, pay the school costs.  Virtually no one that lives in a rental pays school tax.  So their kids pay go free.

I was lucky enough to have 'Daddy's money" and didn't have to work during high school or college, but I sure didn't party myself into poor grades either. I was too busy with the band and other activities, and extra classes, and my parents just wouldn't have put up with it. They knew what I was capable of and expected me to live up to it.

And your older.  You grew up in a time where kids respected their parents and the money it took to educate.  Todays kids think their entitled to it.

A few I knew were dyslexic or ADD and came from little schools that simply didn't have the resources for learning disabilities...Like the poor schools that you yourself mentioned. For a good many, English was a second language and remedial classes were welcomed.

I'm ADHD, and never had assistance.  No special classes, no special training, no drugs either.  And i didn't need remedial courses, i hold a 4.0 AS degree in electroncis, and 3.8 AS deg in Horticulture, I have the equivalence of a MA deg in experience in IT industry.  Never had a dimes worth of help to obtain it either. 

Then comes sophomore year and all bets are off. The classes are much tougher and they goof, they're gone.( Much to the shock to the parent's pocketbook.)   Colleges now, for the most part, don't care how many years it takes a student to finish. 4 years? 5 or 6? Flunk out? Take more remedial classes and come back.  You are a customer, not just a student.$$$$$$ Eventually most kids settle down and get to studying. It's the parents who keep paying, and paying. Then the #10 boot is appropriate!

Well then you agree with me.  Go to any college campus across the country.  In the schools i attended, to get my degree, My electronics school started out with 45 in the class.  The day the final exam was taken, for the entire course, 5 were left in the class. THe rest dropped.  2 of us passed the exam, 2 failed and one was caught cheating on the exam and thrown out.
Second school i started out with 35 in the class, by the second semester, we were down to 8 in the class.  AND in both schools, the ones that were left to the end, were folks over 35.   The rest were usually 18 -21.